November 17, 2005

I haven't been following the Plame story closely. The infusion of Bob Woodward into it excites some folks, but I've always found Woodward frightfully dull. Maybe he gets his stories by being so gray that people don't notice him. But I ran across a drawing I did of him a while back, saying something so quintessentially Woodwardish. I have no idea what he was talking about, but I love the maddening blandness of it.

And I think Scooter might be off the hook since Chris Matthews went with Sen. Kerry pontificating about how much better we would be with him making decisions about Iraq (and did he forget to mention that he served in Vietnam, why no he didn't forget, he even managed to mention Vice-President Cheney's five deferments since somehow that's relevant to a discussion about Iraq policy).

Matthews has been all Plame all the time for quite some time, so now that a potentially major revelation counter to his own views on the matter has arisen, he's changed topics.

I admit I've lost interest in the case, or maybe it's so labrynthine I simply don't have the time to figure it out, but I don't see that this has any impact on Scooter's case. He's not being prosecuted for leaking; he's being prosecuted like Martha was, for lying about the lie...er, alleged lie. See, I'm lost!

The big macro picture that's developing is the incestuous and cynical relationship that the press has with government. They are hangers on and users, not whistleblowers, and stars like Woodward or Miller use their access for private gain as much as for a sense of dedication to journalism.

I, too, don't really see this as changing the Libby case. This does push back the timeline a bit, and adds to the suggestion that at least some in the Administration thought that she was working for the DI, not the DO, side of the CIA in WMD. But BFD.

It is going to be fun though. Libby's lawyers have every incentive to plow through whatever remains of a press privilege. I fully expect a good chunk of the Wash. D.C. and national press crowd to get involved somehow, either reporting, or testifying, or in Chris Mattews situation, no doubt both. It should be exp. enlightening as he talks in the 3rd person with his guests about the trial, in which he is the star prosecution witness.

The indictment says Libby lied when he said he was just passing along what he learned from reporters. Fitzgerald said that wasn't true, as Libby was the first to leak. So this helps Libby's defense. Also helping - Woodward said he told Pincus, and Pincus says "No way, I would remember that" - so the whole question of who knew what when becomes less clear.

I read Plan of Attack, and it was odd that Woodward could have long, direct quotes from supposedly top secret meetings.

Something decidedly odd about Fitzgerald's demeanor. For an experienced prosecutor he seemed uneasy during the famous Libby news briefing a couple of weeks ago when he couldn't look the camera in the eye and last night on Fox News he got testy when asked whether Woodward's revelation would change anything about Libby's indictment and said no, Libby lied and he lied repeatedly!

I hope the charges against Libby aren't dropped and everyone involved in this fiasco is subpoenaed to testify under oath about the machinations of the media and their unholy alliance with the fifth columnists in the CIA and state department.

Um...are you taking issue with my saying holiday drawing instead of Christmas sketch? I certainly didn't mean to offend, I just substituted the words in my mind. It's an old habit - I'm a public school teacher by trade, and we had to be careful to say "holiday break" instead of "Christmas". I went back and read the thread and saw my error.

I have no idea. I thought it would be rude to post about Woodward's place in the Plame story (which I know doesn't interest you) without commenting on the picture (the topic of the thread). There, now I'm being frightfully dull. Take no notice.

The WSJ said "Vice President Dick Cheney isn't believed to have talked to Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald since last year, nor has he given a waiver to Mr. Woodward. That removes him as Mr. Woodward's source."

But Woodward said he had NOT received a waiver to reveal his source publicly. So, I'd say this does not exclude Cheney at all.

A holiday drawing with Santa mulling an important legal question while some sort of discharge flows from a bodily orifice might get a response.

(and a tastefully disgusting, and instructive drawing)

And the Hardball promos today have been hyping the fundraising for Libby's defense fund ($5M and counting, which evil corporations donated, tune in at 7pm EST to find out!) and Mo Dowd of all people is supposed to have an important new angle on the case (cause she is well known as an investigative journalist?).

Thank god, I was worried that he was going to drop this case, I prefer that he be distracted by the current bright and shiny object than spread half-truths about the War in Iraq or the Alito nomination.

And Woodward has been compared to Chance the gardener from Being There, that has always seemed apt.